From Saturday's Australian Inquirer section. The "Inquirer" section usually provides detailed analysis of many complex issues in our daily life.

[ As usual this is paywalled but can be accessed through Google although this seems to just be a one time chance as the Murdoch algorthms seem to recognise your cookies the second time around and just put up the paywall.]

THE success of new technology is often measured by its capacity for creative destruction: how effectively it can sweep away an established order and replace it with something new.

For supporters, rooftop solar electricity has been a creative destroyer of epic proportions. Like a wrecking ball, it has smashed a longstanding norm in Australia's electricity market: - that electricity comes from big, centralised generators, usually powered by coal.

Big generators are under pressure nationwide and openly discussing the possibility of a "death spiral" forced in part by renewables. For fans of creative destruction, the damage has been done. The electricity grid of tomorrow will be very different.

But it has come at a huge cost.

Kick-started by a generous government subsidy, solar power has found its way on to more than a million Australian rooftops.

Billions of dollars' worth of power generation infrastructure is being forced to run inefficiently. Electricity prices are rising and a huge wealth transfer is taking place from those without solar panels to those who have them.

Electricity authorities fear a vicious downward spiral that will leave fewer people to pay for maintaining the power network.

For alternative energy supporters, it is only a matter of time until battery or other storage technology improves to the point that solar-power producers opt to leave the grid completely.

Governments are struggling to cope with the issues of fairness and social equity that the solar revolution has brought.

Queensland Energy Minister Mark McArdle is scathing of the way rooftop solar has been handled in the Sunshine State. Under a scheme introduced by the Bligh government but now stopped, electricity companies are committed to paying 44c a kilowatt hour for electricity at times when few people want to buy it.

But when peak demand comes in the early afternoon, the sun has stopped shining and baseload power must take over.

To do so, the generators say, it has to be kept on standby, burning coal and releasing carbon dioxide for very little return.

Richard Van Breda, chief executive of Stanwell Corporation, which has closed two power stations with a combined capacity of 700 megawatts, equal to Queensland's solar-generation capacity, says the electricity industry is facing significant oversupply issues nationwide.

"I don't have a problem with solar but the way it is funded and the social inequity of it," he says. "You have to appreciate there is a cost attached."

Van Breda says claims of carbon emissions savings are overblown. "The carbon tax has not been responsible for a decline in carbon dioxide emissions," he says. "That has been due to a fall in manufacturing, an increase in hydroelectricity from Tasmania, and flooding in Victoria, which put highly polluting brown-coal generators out of action."

According to Stanwell's Jay Merritt, Queensland's rooftop solar capacity is forecast to rise to 1000MW this year and 2000MW by 2020. "Our coal-fired baseload plants operate most efficiently when they are running at more than 80 per cent," he says.

"At the moment they are operating on an average of about 60 per cent, which is the least efficient way to run them.

"It is a bit like flying a jumbo jet up and down. It uses a lot more fuel and puts a lot more wear and tear on the units."

Like all states, Queensland is part of the National Electricity Market and the situation reflects weak demand and oversupply.

It is not just the addition of renewables that has caused demand for power to fall. Higher electricity prices have made consumers less wasteful, while a downturn in manufacturing nationally, including the closure of two aluminium smelters, has cut demand across the board.

"We have no issue with solar; it's just we have a situation where one of the most expensive forms of generation is forcing the cheapest form of generation offline," Merritt says.

Early solar rooftops are guaranteed 44c/ kWh compared with retail electricity prices as low as 22c and the 4c/ kWh paid to baseload generators.

McArdle says by 2015-16 most Queenslanders will be paying $276 a year, or about 17 per cent of their annual power bill, to subsidise other people having solar power on domestic roofs.

"But these are just the direct costs of the solar bonus scheme," he says. "What is not included is the cost of upgrading the electricity network to cope with widespread power flowing back into the grid, which has resulted in voltage and other issues making the electricity grid in some areas highly unstable.

"Solar power is being provided into the grid during the day when there is a surplus of power available. Queensland's coal-fired baseload power stations cannot be switched on and off and need to run continuously.

"There is no logic to this policy. It does little to reduce carbon, as its supporters claim, because the baseload power stations have to stay on ... to meet demand at peak periods."

Government-owned power companies face revenue losses of several hundred million dollars from lower electricity sales and forced electricity purchases due to solar.

Energex spokesman Mike Swanston says the dynamics of the electricity industry have been changing for several years and the prospect of a "death spiral" is now openly being discussed.

"The death spiral comes about because as more people use less power, the price of electricity for those who remain has to rise to cover the cost of maintaining the network," he says. "As the price goes up, people use less power and the price goes up further."

Encouraged by a high government subsidy, one in five houses on the Energex network has become net energy independent. Swanston says of the 212,000 customers connected to solar, 207,000 are being paid the highest possible 44c a kWh.

He says the high take-up for solar has created three issues: technological, in terms of coping with the new generation on the network; commercial, in terms of cost recovery; and social equity, as solar providers are increasingly subsidised by those without solar.

The Clean Energy Council's deputy chief executive Kane Thornton says about 750,000 Queenslanders are saving money each month on their power bills because of solar.

"Household solar power also helps all Queensland consumers, by reducing the amount of electricity needed from the grid during afternoon periods of peak demand, generally in summer when everyone turns on their air-conditioners, which are key contributors to power bills," Thornton says. He is wary of a growing call for rooftop solar customers to make a bigger contribution to the cost of maintaining the electricity network. Several reports have recommended that households with rooftop solar panels be required to pay a higher fixed charge to access the network.

The Electricity Supply Association of Australia says most solar households end up paying only a fraction of their fair share of the cost of maintaining the network.

The cost of maintaining the electricity network is incorporated into electricity tariffs, which are mostly charged on the basis of how much electricity is consumed. Households with solar are paying less for the network because they generate some of their own electricity and import less from the grid.

But the ESAA says solar households can be among the biggest users of the networks, because they import and export electricity at different times of the day.

"The current arrangements are unfair and need to be changed," an ESAA report on the issue says. "At the moment, low-income households who cannot afford solar, renters and people in apartments pay more to underwrite those customers who can install their own solar system.

"We need to change the way we charge consumers for the cost of the networks to make sure everybody pays their fair share."

The Queensland government has announced a 30-year review of energy supply that is likely to pose some more fundamental questions.

"We might find there are more cost-effective ways to get carbon abatement, if that is what we are wanting," a spokesman says. "If we want a low-carbon economy that may be a reasonable outcome, but what is cost effective?"

Given the amount being spent on solar, it may have been better to buy "a couple of small nuclear power plants" to get "abatement and cheap, reliable electricity as well", the spokesman says. "We have got a 30-year energy strategy for the options going forward, to assess the real costs and what are we prepared to pay."

Originally Posted By: From the story supplied

The Electricity Supply Association of Australia says most solar households end up paying only a fraction of their fair share of the cost of maintaining the network.

The cost of maintaining the electricity network is incorporated into electricity tariffs, which are mostly charged on the basis of how much electricity is consumed. Households with solar are paying less for the network because they generate some of their own electricity and import less from the grid.

What a complete cop out that is that people that have solar panels are not contributing to maintaining the network, people who have grid connect solar are still connected to the grid therefore they are still paying the electricity supply charge which is *supposed* to go to maintaining and upgrading the network.....Just another blatant cop out from a struggling industry that is looking for sympathy.

_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.

Re post#589 you post that SBT said"Yet there is a cable between Victoria and Tasmania to pump "coal fired power" between Vic and Tassie or Vica versa, or the Murray link cable.....so no matter what there is going to be power losses"

It was YOU that said that Yasi, seems there is now limit to low stoops in your camp!

I would suggest that the people running the grid know a damn sight more than yasi could ever get his mind around about grid operations and the problems brought on by back feeding of highly irregular amounts of power from household solar panels into a grid that was only designed for power to flow one way and thats to and not from the consumer.

With charges being almost entirely base on electricity usage and solar panel owners paying very small usage charges due to the power from their heavily subsidised solar panels but still expecting and demanding that the full supply of power be there and immediately on line if and when they demand it, the main cost of maintaining those lines even to the solar panel owners then falls onto those who do not have solar panels or can't afford them or are renting in the form of much higher power usage charges.

The logical way out of this is put a cover / infrastructure charge on customers that are connected to the grid to cover all line and grid costs regardless of power usage and then a separate charge to cover power usage.

This form of a price charging system is increasingly used by water authorities and councils with a fixed charge in the case of the water authorities to cover infrastructure maintenance and renewal costs along with a separate charge to cover the actual water usage and in the case of Councils, a fixed "municipal" charge along with rates being charged as usual according to property valuations.

So expect that same type of system to become the standard charging system in electrical power supplies as well with a fixed infrastructure charge to cover grid maintenance and upgrade costs and a separate charge for the power actually used which will overcome the serious distortion in charging for power that currently exists.

The current charging system is very favourable indeed to those who have the finance to be able afford to install a heavily subsidised solar panel system against those who can't afford to do so or whose circumstances ie; renting is prevent them installing and getting the benefits of solar panels.Currently included in the power usage charges of those without solar power are all of the increased costs of power due to the heavy consumer subsidisation of solar and wind power plus the costs of maintaining and upgrading the grid to take the back feeding from the household solar panels.

Under the current power charging systems those who can't afford to or whose circumstances do not allow for the installation of solar panels are effectively providing those who can afford solar panels a very large subsidy in their power useage.

In situations like this when a serious change in attitudes and circumstances gets started, the pendulum often swings a long way towards the other side. It is just starting to happen in Europe and the USA where huge subsidies have been handed out to various individuals, companies and corporations.Now as the government finances get tighter and tighter, the demands are beginning to be heard along the lines, OK you got a huge handout from the tax payer to get your project up and running and now we want the money back so we are going to put a tax on the item that you got the handout for.

For solar panel owners, don't be at all shocked if in the not so distant future as the great Global Warming scam dies in the a-se and the CO2 levels and the demands to reduce CO2 is no longer regarded as being of any real importance, the tax collectors will float the idea of collecting back all those tax monies that were splurged on subsidising those solar panels.There's a three or more billion dollar pile there to be collected and some would say collected quite legitimately as the solar panel owners have had the luxury of much reduced power costs in any case so now they can return the costs of the panels back to the public funds where they got the subsidy from in the first place.

There are after all a hell of a lot of people out there without solar panels who will say that you were wealthy enough to afford those panels in the first place and got all the benefits in reduced power charges which we had to pay extra for so now is the time to cough up on all those government / tax payer subsidies you got for those panels.

A linesman friend told me last month of another solar power issue for those that install them in towns/cities.

When the sun shines, IF the panels are actually oriented to the sun correctly (for that time of day), and the household power consumption is less that that provided by the solar power inverter output: - if many other houses in the same sub-distribution circuit all attempt to generate into the electrical system at the same time to "wind the household meters backwards" there is a problem.

The problem is that to achieve generation into the grid the inverter has to raise voltage above the street power supply voltage to push the power out.

So all other "competing" houses try to push out power do the same. Result? The voltage required to "generate" needs to exceed the maximum voltage output setting that the power service provider allows to be programmed into your inverter unit (to keep other households within the legal supply upper voltage limit).

So on sunny days, you'd better hope that the other houses have accidently left the airconditioners on!- or else your unit cannot spin your power meter backwards.

How many of those with solar panels are prepared to for Mr tax man? Are not those being paid for generating electricity not making an income from said energy supplies and therefor should be declaring this on their taxable income? After all it's not free money? Are these households with solar power not now part of the electricity generating infrastructure? If so should they also be contributing to maintaining said infrastructure?

There is not much future for electric cars here in Australia with it's huge distances which every now and then even city car owners used to short distance driving where electric cars will work have to sometimes drive those large distances for various reasons. In the city electric cars are possibly OK provided you remembered to charge it up overnight or you don't get caught having to drive further than the highly variable range of the batter,A couple of hundred kilometres claimed driving range can come down to well under half that if you want to tramp the throttle and generally show how fast you are at getting out of the blocks, Thats just batteries behaving as they always have done.

I've lost track on how many electric car companies or the related battery and electric car service network companies ie battery swapping have gone bust in the last few months,

The Tesla electric car manufacturers made a profit of about $11 million but this was due to Tesla being able to sell some $68 million worth of carbon credits it got from other car manufacturers other wise they would have been down the hole for another few tens of millions of dollars all over again! You can read about the crazy circles the warmists go around in below to find out how this all happened.

I had a long post on electric cars a few weeks ago in this thread before the coal nonsense started

Auto enthusiasts were thrilled last week as green automaker Tesla made it into the black, earning $11 million profit on revenue of $562 million in the first quarter of 2013. “I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t somewhat surprising to see they’ve been able to turn a profit so quickly” said Alec Gutierrez, an industry analyst for Kelley Blue Book.

A closer inspection of the numbers, however, reveals that the Palo Alto-based carmaker made its profit by selling $68 million in carbon credits to other automakers. Under a mandate that 15 percent of sales be zero-emission vehicles by 2025, California requires that automakers make a certain number of electric vehicles (EVs) or be penalized. And since Tesla makes only the athletic, $70,000 electric Model S, it has credits by the trunkload — while full-line automakers like GM pay a penalty.

“At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla,” says Thilo Koslowski, an analyst at Gartner Inc. Combine the Golden State’s generous zero-emission credits with federal tax credits ($7,500) and a state rebate ($2,500) on purchase of each Model S, and the government subsidy amounts to $45,000 per car.

But the greater con is the fiction that electric cars are zero-emission vehicles.

According to a comprehensive engineering study published in the February 2013 Journal of Industrial Ecology, greenhouse gas emissions for an EV’s full life cycle — from production through road use — are not much greener than a comparable gas-powered auto, and no more planet-friendly than a diesel car. Indeed, when you factor in the toxicity of materials used in battery production, it’s hard to make the case that EVs are a green alternative.

“Almost half of an EV’s life cycle global-warming potential is associated with its production,” concluded a study group from the Department of Energy and Process Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. “We estimate the GWP from EV production (to be) roughly twice (that) with gas-engine production.”

Green proponents — from California bureaucrats to Leo DiCaprio to Barack Obama — celebrate EVs as morally superior, sustainable vehicles because they get their juice from the common wall plug, not carbon fuels. But while EVs out-green their fossil fuel cousins in the use phase, the energy-intensive process of lithium battery mining and assembly negates much of that advantage in their production phase. The Norwegian study also assumes a European electricity mix in producing batteries. In the U.S., where coal is a greater percentage of the mix, the production emissions of EVs are even higher.

Yet, another study commissioned by the British government and auto industry compared mid-size cars with electric and gas power-plants. It found EV production emissions equal to 80,000 miles traveled in a gas-powered car, meaning the electric must be driven that distance before it was as environmentally efficient as its rival. Given that range-challenged EVs serve mostly as short-hop commuter transportation, that mileage figure may never be reached — even as EVs gain credits for zero-emission superiority.

The earth impact of EVs gets more complicated still when you factor in the toxic tail of electronic equipment materials like copper and nickel.

“Human toxicity potential (HTP) stands out as a potentially significant category for problem-shifting associated with a shift from gas engines to EVs,” concludes the Norwegian study. “The different EV options have 180 percent to 290 percent greater HTP impacts.”

OhThe urgency of global warming as a public policy issue has already been undercut by science. Cutting CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050, as called for by the United Nations, would insignificantly impact temperature increases — while causing gross economic harm. And the 2009 Climategate scandal exposed the doctoring of climate models.

Still, green consumers are looking to reduce their environmental impact. Tesla EVs are superb vehicles — but they are no more green than their gas-powered Caddy rivals, even as pols unfairly subsidize them with thousands of dollars

Electric car battery supplier Better Place plans to file for bankruptcy within the next few days, CNN Money reports.Better Place was a proponent of battery swapping technology, which involves replacing an electric car’s depleted battery, rather than charging it.Saving that kind of time would be a huge boon for the electric vehicle industry, which is hamstrung by battery technology that keeps charge times long, range limited, and prices high.Better Place, founded in 2007 by Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi, proved in 2010 it could swap out and replace a battery in under 60 seconds, far faster than even the best EV charging times.According to the New York Times, Agassi, a former top executive at SAP, raised over $800 million in private capital from investors including HSBC, General Electric, and Morgan Stanley. It built a small network of stations in Denmark and Israel.But between 2010 and February 2013, it posted $477 million in cumulative losses. That month, it announced it would close its operations in North America and Australia, and continue working in Israel and Denmark.That move could not save it, however, and the electric vehicle market did not expand at the pace the company had expected, according to CNN Money.“The company was not well-served by having things it thought would happen over a decade happen within a year,” a source told CNN. “Ultimately the idea was always based around scale, and it just didn’t build it fast enough or well enough.”This news comes as Tesla Motors — riding high after becoming profitable and paying off its loan from the Department of Energy — plans to announce news about its Supercharger network, where its customers can charge their car batteries halfway in 30 minutes, for free.There is speculation that Tesla will announce a battery swapping scheme, which seems less likely now, given the expected failure of the company that had gone the furthest in making the technology a reality.

And the Renewable Energy industry is wondering why investors are becoming very hard to find to invest in all the high sounding green variations of renewable / alternative energy projects. Investors, unlike governments use their own money so they are not stupid and get very leery if they don't like the smell of the roses presented to them by the promoters of the green schemes.Or if using somebody else's money, their vitals are held to the fire if they get it all wrong.

How many of those with solar panels are prepared to for Mr tax man? Are not those being paid for generating electricity not making an income from said energy supplies and therefor should be declaring this on their taxable income? After all it's not free money? Are these households with solar power not now part of the electricity generating infrastructure? If so should they also be contributing to maintaining said infrastructure?

Unless you are operating a solar panel farm as a business, then there would be no tax implications.

Originally Posted By: The ATO

[ATO] has released its findings regarding the treatment of income generated from selling electricity back to the grid.

In short, the finding was very favorable for projects installed on a principal residence as the credits or payments will not be classified as assessable income for tax purposes. This ruling makes going solar all the more attractive, especially for the larger 10kw investment style projects. Below are the three key rulings taken from the ATO website.

Ruling

1. Are the credits or payments you receive for power generated by solar panels on your residence, assessable for income tax?

Answer: No.

2. Are you entitled to either an outright deduction or a decline in value deduction for the cost of the solar panels?

Answer: No.

3. Are you entitled to any deductions in relation to funds borrowed in order to purchase the solar panels?

Answer: No.

Whilst you cannot depreciate the asset nor claim a tax deduction for the interest on any borrowed money, the solar installation will add value to your home and becomes a great selling point upon the resale of the property. This will become especially relevant if the government proceeds with attaching an energy rating to each residential home.

The link below refers to the ATO tax ruling regarding income from solar panels:

(Update 17 Oct 2011: The document originally linked to in this article is no longer available on the ATO website. Private rulings similar to the original can be found here and here.)

The above ruling will not apply for non-primary residences such as investment properties or businesses. Furthermore, if you are registered for GST purposes and make the installation with the intention of furthering business enterprise, then GST will be applied to any income generated. The link below refers to the ATO tax ruling regarding GST payable from solar income:

_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.

I would suggest that the people running the grid know a damn sight more than yasi could ever get his mind around about grid operations and the problems brought on by back feeding of highly irregular amounts of power from household solar panels into a grid that was only designed for power to flow one way and thats to and not from the consumer.

I think i would Know a fair bit more about solar panels than you may think.You must have your wires crossed and are thinking about DC voltage, that only flows one way......AC power or alternating current, it flows in both directions......

Originally Posted By: ROM

With charges being almost entirely base on electricity usage and solar panel owners paying very small usage charges due to the power from their heavily subsidised solar panels but still expecting and demanding that the full supply of power be there and immediately on line if and when they demand it, the main cost of maintaining those lines even to the solar panel owners then falls onto those who do not have solar panels or can't afford them or are renting in the form of much higher power usage charges..

That again is a copout.... the tariff that electricity providers charge usually covers their cost of producing power (extraction,production,plant,wages and PROFIT) the supply charge/fee is there to cover the cost of maintenance,repairs and upgrades to the network.

Originally Posted By: ROM

There are after all a hell of a lot of people out there without solar panels who will say that you were wealthy enough to afford those panels in the first place and got all the benefits in reduced power charges which we had to pay extra for so now is the time to cough up on all those government / tax payer subsidies you got for those panels.

Why are they “wealthy” just because they have purchased solar panels? Are people wealthy because they own a car? a motorbike? the latest iphone? solar is a lot cheaper than it used to be and will still be producing power in 25 years time unlike your car which has been replaced 3 or 4 times (or more) in that same time frame, or add up the cost of new mobile phones over the next 25 years.... once you have made the initial outlay for solar it will pay for itself and save you or make you money down the track..

Why should people be penalized? people out there made the conscious decision to install solar panels so they would reduce the amount of power they consumer therefore reduce their bill, they have made a monetary commitment out of their own pocket to install solar power to SAVE them money, why should they be penalized? Should you have to cough up extra because you have a car? should you have to cough up extra because you still have a landline phone?

You would rather just spend your time complaining about solar panels than actually doing something about it! you may find that they even save YOU money!

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf

And at what cost are those batteries? I've been told they are 7 grand each and you require 2 of them in case one dies?? Their life span is between 7-10 years? Please enlighten me!!!

like with anything batteries can vary widely from basic to the absolute best. now for 7 grand they would have to be gold plated!You can get 2 volt gell cell batteries that are in the of over 2000Ah that are between 1500-2000 (depending on where you buy them) and you would either need 6 for a 12 volt system of 12 for a 24 volt system and at that Amp hr it is a pretty decent sized system power wise!.Batteries on average will last between 7-15 years depending on how you treat them if you look after them, and if you don't cycle them to deeply they can last much longer, there is another type i think it has nickel in it (from memory) and they are supposed to have a life span of 25 years +

When i bought my batteries i bought 6 and they cost me $250 each....

Quote:

My brother in law is a sparky and he told me that if one panel in a network doesn't receive adequate sunlight, the whole system wont produce? Correct me if I'm wrong please!!!!

Not necessarily, there are many different type of panels out there and some are designed for say southern areas, that don't have the same light intensity and are designed to operate at lower light levels and if one of the panels are shaded the others will still work to full capacity.

hence loss is proportional to distance to consumer. NOT a good argument for wind generators, as sited in SA/Vic eh?

Originally Posted By: Petros

Re post#589 you post that SBT said"Yet there is a cable between Victoria and Tasmania to pump "coal fired power" between Vic and Tassie or Vica versa, or the Murray link cable.....so no matter what there is going to be power losses"It was YOU that said that Yasi, seems there is now limit to low stoops in your camp!

In my original reply i said “coal fired power” it is funny though you state “NOT a good argument for wind generators,” like that wind turbines are going to loose all of the produced power sending the electricity over distance, yet when it comes to sending “coal fired power” over a distance then the loss is irrelevant?

Just for future reference Tasmania actually exported 989 GWh of power to Victoria.Another interesting statistic about Tassie is they have...2274.45 MW of hydro142.5 MW Wind730MW of natural gas power.so it looks like only a bit over 30% of the states power comes from Fossils and the rest comes from renewable sources, and they are even exporting power to victoria.

_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.

Renewable energy is a hot and sometimes controversial topic on land, but within the cruising world wind generators are old news, and being 'independent of the grid' is taken for granted.

It may seem silly to talk about renewable energy in the sailing world - aren't sailboats powered by the wind after all? But look a little more closely, and for each sailboat on the water, there are a slew of energy consuming generators, outboards and batteries making sure we can get from point A to B. With climate change an increasingly pressing concern for the oceans and the environment, reducing our use of fossil fuels is critical. That being said, some of the best arguments for alternative energy sources are purely practical.

The cruising community has long embraced renewable energy as a way to reduce costs and help make long passages possible on small amounts of diesel fuel. Solar panels and wind generators are almost ubiquitous on live-aboards, allowing cruisers to maintain battery banks while far away from traditional energy sources.

Here at Sailors for the Sea we have noticed a big increase in the use of renewable energy with racing sailors as well. More efficient and cost-effective technologies mean that many of the same benefits the cruising community has long understood are now workable for racers. Whether switching a race committee boat to biodiesel or sailing around the world without a drop of diesel, race organizers are looking towards alternative energy sources. The America's Cup, The Atlantic Cup, and the Vendee Globe are three regattas that are each taking a different approach to reducing their environmental footprint with the use of alternative energy.

Solar Power Security LightAmerica's Cup - Alternative Energy supporting a large regatta venue: Race organizers at the America's Cup have taken a strong stance on sustainability with a commitment to running every event in accordance to our Clean Regattas certification criteria and helping us create a stringent Platinum Level certification. The on-shore footprint of the America's Cup is very large, with multiple venues scattered throughout the city of San Francisco and an anticipated hundreds of thousands of visitors during the three months of racing. Race organizers have committed to holding a carbon neutral event, and to achieve this they will utilize renewable energy in different ways:

Solar Panels: Past America's Cup World Series events have seen organizers turn to solar power for some of their energy needs. Security lights powered by solar panels will reduce electrical use for a light that needs to be very bright and on 12 hours a day. Solar panels will cover the top of the sound stage and will generate enough power to boom the announcer's voices over the large crowds. Biodiesel: When The America's Cup is unable to use shore power, and the use of generators are necessary using biodiesel will help reduce their fossil fuel usage and emissions.

Atlantic Cup - Renewable technologies for short distance and inshore racing: The Atlantic Cup, a regatta currently being run for its third year, has always received Gold level Clean Regattas certification. Race organizers require that every team use a form of alternative energy and through their sponsors assist teams with making the switch.

Hydro-generators: Many boats in the Class 40 circuit use hydro-generators to charge their batteries. Much like an upside-down wind generator, they have become popular in recent years as their increasing efficiency and reduced drag means they barely affect a boat's speed. (Watch video below)

Solar Panels: Many boats are equipped with solar panels to charge their batteries.

Bio-diesel: When the engines must be run (hopefully only to and from dock) race organizers supply biodiesel for each boat.

Vendee Globe - Around the world with no fossil fuel: The Vendee Globe is a grueling solo round the world race from west to east via the three major capes -Good Hope, Leeuwin, and the Horn. In years past, about half the fleet does not make it across the finish line. For many years, racers have relied on some form of renewable energy to make it all the way around the world, typically a combination of solar panels and diesel fuel used to keep their batteries charged. However, this year one sailor set out with the goal of completing the race without using a single drop of diesel. Javier Sanso on Team ACCIONA created a 100 percent ecopowered boat built to compete with the best in class.

A combination of solar panels, wind generators, and hydro generators were used onboard to charge batteries. An electrical engine, a first in the history of the race, was used in place of a standard diesel engine. Team ACCIONA has to ask for the race rules to be changed to allow for the electrical engine, opening possibilities for the future.

Solar-powered generators, backup power and mobile power solutions are recently gaining popularity since super storm Sandy left hundreds of thousands of East Coasters without power for weeks in 2012.

Several companies and start-ups have announced mobile solar generators as a solution. Intermountain Wind and Solar announced its G.O.O.D. Wagon this week. While the acronym doesn’t seem to stand for anything, the trailer of solar panels and batteries offers a solid backup source of power that, depending on the model, can serve as a command center in the aftermath of a disaster like Sandy.

The Salt Lake City company sells and installs solar photovoltaic panels and solar hot water heaters. The company also offers a variety of battery back-up solutions to customers, which made the manufacture of its wagon a natural next step.

“We wanted to create an energy source that provided the same quality energy of our solar panels, but in a mobile format. In the case of power outages or emergency situations, mobile units can function as a command center, providing power to multiple outlets,” said Doug Shipley, founder of Intermountain Wind and Solar.

While mobile solar is a terrific solution for major disasters, selling big solar generator trailers solely for use in the event of an emergency isn’t the best business model. For that reason, most solar generator manufacturers are offering them as more than emergency back-up power. There are several industries that can benefit from regular use of a mobile solar generator.

“Mobile generators can have a multitude of uses that go beyond emergency backup energy,” according to a release from Intermountain. “The wagon can also be utilized to power tools and equipment, ideal for outdoor projects and activities.”

Some solar generator manufacturers have been marketing their trailers to events companies that rent equipment like tents and tables to festivals, concerts and weddings.

Since they’re quieter, solar generators have a big advantage. As the cost of solar panels has decreased, solar generators are more competitive with their noisy diesel counterparts.

You must have your wires crossed and are thinking about DC voltage, that only flows one way......AC power or alternating current, it flows in both directions......

AC ie Alternating Current reverses polarity on a cyclic basis . It does NOT flow in both directions. Current the stuff that you consume in your appliances and in all electrical powered products can flow in both directions but all the grids are designed in wiring, transformers, switching gear, electronic controllers and etc for current to flow TO the consumer and are not designed for Current to flow FROM the consumer hence the quite serious problems now appearing for the grid operators with the proliferation of roof top solar panels.

Yep! those solar panel owners who have benefitted to the extent of hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars of public / tax payer's money will fight tooth and nail to try and prevent the government imposing a special tax on solar panel owners to recover both the generous tax payer funded subsidy handout which was used to fund the purchase of the solar panels.

Plus the increased cost of the changes that are having to be made to the grid to carry the feedback flow of current from the solar panels and the fact that the usage of power by the solar panel owners might not / will not cover the cost of maintaining the power grid facilities to the solar powered households due to their low usage but public policy [ so far! ] is that the grid operators have to meet their demands that the grid power be there if and when they, the solar panel owners demand it and at any time and in the amounts that they demand.

But the pendulum has already begun it's next great swing towards the other side of the equation and there might be quite some pain for solar panel owners and wind turbine farm and solar farm investors in the future as governments seek to recover the monies handed out to those no longer important and quite inefficient energy producers by preceding governments who had the hell deliberately frightened out of them by the spectre of supposedly catastrophic CO2 increases, a claim that has now been effectively rebutted by the latest science.

All easily fixed by a special infrastructure levy on solar panel owning households [ and those so called renewable energy industries ] by the grid operators which then removes the unfair imposts on and the requirement placed on the non solar panel owners to heavily subsidise the grid upgrades and changes and maintenance solely for the benefit of the low power using solar panel owners.

And I see that PROFIT is apparently a very bad thingthat must be eliminated.The communists tried that starting nearly a century ago and look where it got them and the countries they tried it on.

Originally Posted By: yasi

there are many different type of panels out there and some are designed for say southern areas, that don't have the same light intensity and are designed to operate at lower light levels

I reckon that would be real news to all the solar panel manufacturers and researchers. Imagine, a solar panel that is only designed for the special light in the south or was that the special light in the north.

Or a solar panel designed to be more efficient in converting the lower light levels [ ?? ] in the south to electricity than the less efficient solar panels used in the north where there is apparently more and different light that somehow doesn't work in those panels designed for the southern light Yeh! Right!

Quote:

Solar Electricity: How does it work?

Light striking certain substances causes the surface of the material to emit electrons. It is as if light somehow kicks electrons right out of atoms. Light striking other substances causes the material to accept electrons. It is the combination of these two substances that can be made use of to cause electrons to flow through a conductor.

This is the so called photo-electric effect. Photovoltaic means sunlight converted into a flow of electrons (electricity). Photovoltaic devices, or solar cells, are like generators that work in sunlight. They make electricity without waste, noise or pollution. They produce electricity without combustion. A solar cell is a solid state device in which there are no moving parts (except for photons and electrons) so nothing wears out.

The fuel is "photons". These can be thought of as "packets of sunlight" that carry a phenomenal amount of energy to earth at a prodigious rate. The Solar Panels of today make use of this abundant energy by using silicon crystals with small amounts of impurity added. This process of adding minute amounts of different elements into an otherwise pure crystal is called "doping". By having two thin layers of doped material bonded against one another, an electric current can be induced when exposed to light.

Energy Content of Sunlight

Sunlight has an energy content of 1 kW (1,000 watts) per square metre. The typical Solar Panel today achieves between 10% (amorphous solar panels) and 18% (poly/mono-crystalline solar panels) conversion. The theoretical maximum efficiency of a silicon cell is about 21%. Using a more costly technology 31% conversion has been achieved.

What to expect from a Solar Panel

A single 190 watt solar panel (24V) should produce about 5.5 amps under sunny conditions. Each day of reasonable sunshine you should expect about 26 amp-hours from one such panel (based on solar radiation data for north coast NSW). You need to take into account the number of consecutive days when you may not see much sun, and allow for this by having a large enough solar array and battery bank to tide you over through such periods.

As Petros said Yasi, you are talking drivel and it is with a capital "D"

But the pendulum has already begun it's next great swing towards the other side of the equation and there might be quite some pain for solar panel owners and wind turbine farm and solar farm investors in the future as governments seek to recover the monies handed out to those no longer important and quite inefficient energy producers by preceding governments who had the hell deliberately frightened out of them by the spectre of supposedly catastrophic CO2 increases, a claim that has now been effectively rebutted by the latest science.

That's right the tide has turned, that is why we are having this conversation! because the Coal fire power industry is now in a death spiral and they don't like the fact that other players are coming into the market and standing on their toes!

The player’s in the market are having an effect to reduce power consumption coming from fossil providers and the renewables are having a profound effect to date, that is why the fossil providers have gone into desperation mode to try and even out the playing field that is still already heavily weighted in their favour i might add!

Let me see on subsidies, then why don't all the fossil providers hand all the subsidies they receive back? why don't they stop accepting the $2 billion dollars they receive every year on fuel tax? probably because if they did that then the fossils would be dead!

Why don’t the fossil providers stop sticking their hand out for taxpayer funds?

Originally Posted By: ROM

All easily fixed by a special infrastructure levy on solar panel owning households [ and those so called renewable energy industries ] by the grid operators which then removes the unfair imposts on and the requirement placed on the non solar panel owners to heavily subsidise the grid upgrades and changes and maintenance solely for the benefit of the low power using solar panel owners.

So what does the $80-90+ service charge on your electricity bill that you and everyone else that has grid power, even those that have solar panels has to pay? what is that for? to add to their profits?

_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.

IMF says global subsidies to fossil fuels amount to $1.9 trillion a year … and that’s probably an underestimate

A new report [PDF] from the International Monetary Fund tries to tally up fossil fuel subsidies around the world and finds that they add up to an eye-popping $1.9 trillion a year. That’s 2.5 percent of global GDP!

Brad Plumer has a typically lucid summary on the report’s conclusions, but I want to dig in a little on one part, because believe it or not, the IMF’s conclusion may be too conservative. The real truth about global fossil fuel subsidies may be more eye-popping yet.

So, where does that $1.9 trillion come from? Around $480 billion of it comes from direct subsidies, i.e., government handing out money. This is what people usually think of when they hear “subsidies.” Contrary to popular opinion, the developed world does very little of this kind of thing. Direct fossil fuel subsidies (“pre-tax” subsidies) are overwhelmingly concentrated in the developing world and mostly devoted to making petro-products affordable for poor people:

Those direct subsidies are a) a growing problem for the budgets of those countries, and b) a fraught and delicate political issue. Needless to say, people don’t like suddenly losing a big pot of financial assistance. They often retaliate by rioting or, you know, starving. The report contains a big section on ways that countries can wind back those subsidies without unduly hurting the poor. It’s interesting.

But my focus here is on the other $1.4 trillion, which is IMF’s tally of “the effects of energy consumption on global warming; on public health through the adverse effects on local pollution; on traffic congestion and accidents; and on road damage.” These are the “externalities” you’re always hearing about, and by failing to make fossil fuel companies pay for them, governments are implicitly subsidizing those companies. IMF calls this under-taxing of fossil fuels “mispricing,” but it’s easier to think of them as indirect subsidies.

Germany’s dash for coal continues apace. Following on the opening of two new coal power stations in 2012, six more are due to open this year, with a combined capacity of 5800MW, enough to provide 7% of Germany’s electricity needs.

Including the plants coming on stream this year, there are 12 coal fired stations due to open by 2020. Along with the two opened last year in Neurath and Boxberg, they will be capable of supplying 19% of the country’s power.

In addition, 27 gas fired stations are due on line, which should contribute a further 17% of Germany’s total electricity generation. (Based on 2011 statistics, total generation was 575 TwH).

It is worth noting that none of these coal or gas plants will be built with Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS), which is a legal requirement for coal generators in the UK, despite the fact that the technology does not yet exist on a commercial scale.

The UK government is so desperate to get out of the corner it has boxed itself into, that it wants to hand out huge sums to subsidise the cost of developing CCS technology. According to their “Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy” (Page 31), they want to support the cost of four commercial scale CCS projects.

But since the report was written in 2011, nothing much has happened, other than the announcement of two preferred bidders for the £1bn programme. One of these, the White Rose project at Drax, won’t be submitting a planning application until next year, and a final government investment decision won’t be made until 2015.

In the meantime, UK energy policy is allowed to drift. No company would abandon a successful, proven and efficient method of operating, without an alternative, better way having already been thoroughly tried and tested. So why does the UK government think it knows better?

_________________________
202mm April 2017Best 156mm 19/5/172017 Total 694mm2016 Total 649mm2015 Total 375mm 2014 Total 1032mm2013 Total 715mm

Energex spokesman Mike Swanston says the dynamics of the electricity industry have been changing for several years and the prospect of a "death spiral" is now openly being discussed.

"The death spiral comes about because as more people use less power, the price of electricity for those who remain has to rise to cover the cost of maintaining the network," he says. "As the price goes up, people use less power and the price goes up further."